LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





013 701 870 6 # 



pH8J 



E 477 

. 75 W~ 

.R47 

Copy 1 



WHO BURNED COLUMBIA? 



By JAMES FORD RHODES 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



g^m^i'ian §i;i^t0t:ial §mm 



VOL. VII NO. 3 APRIL igo2 



WHO BURNED COLUMBIA? 

The story goes that when General Sherman lived in New York 
City, which was during the last five years of his life, one night at a 
dinner-party when he and an ex-Confederate general who had 
fought against him in the southwest were the chief guests, an Eng- 
lishman present, not actuated by malice but blundering through 
ignorance, asked innocently who burned Columbia ? Had bomb- 
shells struck the tents of these generals during the war, they would 
not have caused half the sensation to them that did this question 
put with the laudable desire of information. The emphatic lan- 
guage of Sherman interlarded with the oaths he uttered spontane- 
ously, the bitter charges of the Confederate, the pounding of the 
table, the dancing of the glasses, told the Englishman that the 
bloody chasm had not been entirely filled. With a little variation 
and with some figurative meaning, he might have used the words 
of lago : " Friends all but now, even now in peace ; and then but 
now as if some planet had outwitted men, tilting at one another's 
breast in opposition. I cannot speak any beginning to this peevish 
odds." 

But the question which disturbed the New York dinner-party is 
a delight to the historian. Nothing can equal the pleasure he has 
in going through the mass of evidence, feeling that history is the 
best known where there are the most documents, and if he be of 
Northern birth he ought to approach the subject with absolute 
candor. Of a Southerner who had himself lost property or whose 
parents had lost property through Sherman's campaign of invasion, 
it would be asking too much to expect him to consider this subject 
in a judicial spirit. Even Trent, a moderate and impartial Southern 
writer whose tone is a lesson to us all, writes " of the much vexed 
question Who burned Columbia?": "It is hard to read Simms's 
stirring pages without coming to the conclusion that the sack of 
Columbia is one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated by the 
troops of a civilized country." 

Sherman, with his army of 60,000, left Savannah February i, 
1865, and reached the neighborhood of Columbia February 16. 
The next day Columbia was evacuated by the Confederates, occu- 
pied by troops of the fifteenth corps of the Federal army, and by 

VOL. VII. 32. 4S5 



486 /. F. Rhodes 

the morning of the iSth either three-fifths or two-thirds of the town 
lay in ashes. The facts contained in these two sentences are almost 
the only ones undisputed. We shall consider this episode most 
curiously if we take first Sherman's account, then Wade Hampton's, 
ending with what I conceive to be a true relation. 

The city was surrendered by the mayor and three aldermen to 
Colonel George A. Stone at the head of his brigade. Soon after- 
wards Sherman and Howard, the commander of the right wing of 
the army, rode into the city ; they observed piles of cotton burning 
and Union soldiers and citizens working to extinguish the fire, 
which was partially subdued. Let Sherman speak for himself in 
the first account that he wrote, which was his report of April 4, 
1865. "Before one single public building had been fired by 
order," Sherman wrote, " the smouldering fires [cotton] set by 
Hampton's order were rekindled by the wind, and communicated 
to the buildings around. [Wade Hampton commanded the Con- 
federate cavalry.] About dark they began to spread, and got be- 
yond the control of the brigade on duty within the city. The 
whole of Woods' division was brought in, but it was found impos- 
sible to check the flames, which, by midnight, had become unman- 
ageable, and raged until about 4 A. m., when the wind subsiding 
they were got under control. 

" I was up nearly all night, and saw Generals Howard, Logan, 
Woods, and others, laboring to save houses and protect families 
thus suddenly deprived of shelter, and even of bedding and wearing 
apparel. I disclaim on the part of my army any agency in this 
fire, but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia re- 
mains unconsumed. And without hesitation I charge General 
Wade Hampton with having burned his own city of Columbia, not 
with a malicious intent or as the manifestation of a silly ' Roman 
stoicism,' but from folly, and want of sense, in filling it with lint, 
cotton, and tinder. Our officers and men on duty worked well to 
extinguish the flames ; but others not on duty, including the officers 
who had long been imprisoned there rescued by us, may have as- 
sisted in spreading the fire after it had once begun, and may have 
indulged in unconcealed joy to see the ruin of the capital of South 
Carolina." Howard, in his report, with some modification agrees 
with his chief, and the account in 77/;? MarcJi to the Sea of General 
Cox, whose experience and training fitted him well to weigh the 
evidence, gives at least a partial confirmation to Sherman's theory 
of the origin of the fire. 

I have not, however, discovered sufficient evidence to support 
the assertion of Sherman that Wade Hampton ordered the cotton 



a- 



P. 



Who Burned Cobimbia ? 487 

in the streets of Columbia to be burned. Nor do I believe Sher- 
man knew a single fact on which he might base so positive a state- 
ment.^ It had generally been the custom for the Confederates in 
their retreat to burn cotton to prevent its falling into the hands of 
the invading army, and because such was the general rule Sherman 
assumed that it had been applied in this particular case. This 
assumption suited his interest, as he sought a victim to whom he 
might charge the burning of Columbia. His statement in his 
Memoirs, published in 1875, is a delicious bit of historical naivete. 
"In my official report of this conflagration," he wrote, "I dis- 
tinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and confess I did 
so pointedly, to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my 
opinion boastful and professed to be the special champion of South 
Carolina." 

Instead of Hampton giving an order to burn the cotton, I am 
satisfied that he urged Beauregard, the general in command, to 
issue an order that this cotton should not be burned, lest the fire 
might spread to the shops and houses, which for the most part were 
built of wood, and I am further satisfied that such an order was 
given. Unfortunately the evidence for this is not contemporary. 
No such order is printed in the Official Records, and I am advised 
from the War Department that no such order has been found. The 
nearest evidence to the time which I have discovered is a letter of 
Wade Hampton of April 21, 1866, and one of Beauregard of May 
2, 1866. Since these dates, there is an abundance of evidence, some 
of it sworn testimony, and while it is mixed up with inaccurate state- 
ments on another point, and all of it is of the nature of recollec- 
tions, I cannot resist the conclusion that Beauregard and Hampton 
gave such an order. It was unquestionably the wise thing to do. 
There was absolutely no object in burning the cotton, as the Fed- 
eral troops could not carry it with them and could not ship it to any 
seaport which was under Union control. 

An order of Beauregard issued two days after the burning of 
Columbia and printed in the Official Records shows that the policy 
of burning cotton to keep it out of the hands of Sherman's army 
had been abandoned. Sherman's charge, then, that Wade Hamp- 
ton burned Columbia, falls to the ground. The other part of his 
account, in which he maintained that the fire spread to the buildings 
from the smouldering cotton rekindled by the wind, which blew a 
gale, deserves more respect. His report saying that he saw cotton 

' In a letter presented to the Senate of the United States (some while before April 
21, 1866) Sherman said: "I saw in your Columbia newspaper the printed order of 
Gen. Wade Hampton that on the approach of the Yankee army all the cotton should be 
burned." {Soiith. Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. VII., p. 156.) 



488 /. F. Rhodes 

afire in the streets was written April 4, 1865, and Howard's in 
which the same fact is stated was written April i, very soon after 
the event, when their recollection would be fresh. All of the 
Southern evidence (except one most important of all) is to the effect 
that no cotton was burning until after the Federal troops entered 
the city. Many Southerners in their testimony before the British 
and American mixed commission under examination and cross-ex- 
amination swear to this ; and Wade Hampton swears that he was 
one of the last Confederates to leave the city, and that, when he 
left, no cotton was afire, and he knew that it was not fired by his 
men. But this testimony was taken in 1872 and 1873, ^-nd maybe 
balanced by the sworn testimony of Sherman, Howard, and other 
Union officers before the same commission in 1872. 

The weight of the evidence already referred to would seem to 
me to show that cotton was afire when the Federal troops entered 
Columbia, but a contemporary statement of a Confederate ofiScer 
puts it beyond doubt. Major Chambliss, who was endeavoring to 
secure the means of transportation for the Confederate ordnance and 
ordnance stores, wrote, in a letter of February 20, that at three 
o'clock on the morning of February 17, which was a number of 
hours before the Union soldiers entered Columbia, "the city was 
illuminated with burning cotton." But it does not nevertheless 
follow that the burning cotton in the streets of Columbia was the 
cause of the fire which destroyed the city. When we come to the 
true relation, we shall see that the preponderance of the evidence 
points to another cause. 

February 27, ten days after the fire, Wade Hampton, in a letter 
to Sherman, charged him with having permitted the burning of 
Columbia if he did not order it directly ; and this has been iterated 
later by many Southern writers. The correspondence between 
Halleck and Sherman is cited to show premeditation on the part of 
the general. " Should you capture Charleston," wrote Halleck, 
December 18, 1864, " I hope that by some accident the place may 
be destroyed, and if a little salt should be sown upon the site it 
may prevent the growth of future crops of nullification and seces- 
sion." Sherman thus replied six days later: " I will bear in mind 
your hint as to Charleston, and don't think salt will be necessary. 
When I move, the Fifteenth Corps will be on the right of the 
Right Wing, and their position will bring them naturally into Char- 
leston first ; and if you have watched the history of that corps 
you will have remarked that they generally do their work up pretty 
well. The truth is, the whole army is burning with an insatiable 
desire to wreak vengeance on South Carolina. I almost tremble 



Who Bui'ned Columbia ? 489 

at her fate, but feel that she deserves all that seems in store for her. 
■ • • I look upon Columbia as quite as bad as Charleston." 

The evidence from many points of view corroborating this state- 
ment of the feeling of the army towards South Carolina is ample. 
The rank and file of Sherman's army were men of some education 
and intelligence ; they were accustomed to discuss public matters, 
weigh reasons, and draw conclusions. They thought that South 
Carolina had brought on the civil war, was responsible for the cost 
and bloodshed of it, and no punishment for her could be too severe. 
That was likewise the sentiment of the officers. A characteristic 
expression of the feeling may be found in a home letter of Colonel 
Charles F. Morse, of the second Massachusetts, who speaks of the 
"miserable, rebellious State of South Carolina." "Pity for these 
inhabitants," he further writes, " I have none. In the first place, 
they are rebels, and I am almost prepared to agree with Sherman 
that a rebel has no rights, not even the right to live except by our 
permission." 

It is no wonder, then, that Southern writers, smarting at the loss 
caused by Sherman's campaign of invasion, should believe that 
Sherman connived at the destruction of Columbia. But they are 
wrong in that belief The general's actions were not so bad as his 
words. Before his troops made their entrance he issued this 
order : " General Howard will . . . occupy Columbia, destroy the 
pubhc buildings, railroad property, manufacturing and machine 
shops, but will spare libraries and asylums and private dwellings." 
That Sherman was entirely sincere when he gave this order, and 
that his general officers endeavored to carry it out cannot be ques- 
tioned. A statement which he made under oath in 1872 indicates that 
he did not connive at the destruction of Columbia. " If I had made 
up my mind to burn Columbia," he declared, " I would have burnt 
it with no more feeling than I would a common prairie dog village ; 
but I did not do it." 

Other words of his exhibit without disguise his feelings in re- 
gard to the occurrence which the South has regarded as a piece of 
wanton mischief " The ulterior and strategic advantages of the 
occupation of Columbia are seen now clearly by the result," said 
Sherman under oath. " The burning of the private dwellings, 
though never designed by me, was a trifling matter compared with 
the manifold results that soon followed. Though I never ordered 
it and never wished it, I have never shed many tears over the event, 
_ because I believe it hastened what we all fought for, the end of the 
war." It is true that he feared previous to their entry the burning 
of Columbia by his soldiers, owing to their " deep-seated feeling of 



490 J. F. Rhodes 

hostility " to the town, but no general of such an army during such 
a campaign of invasion would have refused them the permission 
to occupy the capital city of South Carolina. " I could have had 
them stay in the ranks," he declared, " but I would not have done 
it under the circumstances to save Columbia." 

Historical and legal canons for weighing evidence are not the 
same. It is a satisfaction, however, when after the investigation of 
any case they lead to the same decision. The members of the 
British and American mi.xed commission (an Englishman, an 
American and the Italian Minister at Washington), having to adju- 
dicate upon claims for "property alleged to have been destroyed 
by the burning of Columbia, on the allegation that that city was 
wantonly fired by the army of General Sherman, either under his 
orders or with his consent and permission," disallowed all the 
claims, " all the commissioners agreeing." While they were not 
called upon to deliver a formal opinion in the case, the American 
agent was advised " that the commissioners were unanimous in the 
conclusion that the conflagration which destroyed Columbia was not 
to be ascribed to either the intention or default of either the Federal 
or Confederate officers." 

Recapitulating then what I think I have established : Sherman's 
account and that of the Union writers who follow him cannot be 
accepted as history. Neither is the version of Wade Hampton and 
the Southern writers worthy of credence. Let me now give the 
true relation. My authorities are the contemporary accounts of six 
Federal officers, whose names will appear when the evidence is pre- 
sented in detail ; the report of Major Chambliss of the Confederate 
army ; "The Sack and Destruction of Columbia," a series of articles 
in the Columbia Phcenix, written by William Gilmore Simms and 
printed a little over a month after the event ; and a letter written 
from Charlotte, February 22, to the Richmond Whig, by F. G. de F., 
who remained in Columbia until the day before the entrance of the 
Union troops. 

Two days before the entrance of the Federal troops, Columbia 
was placed under martial law, but this did not prevent some riotous 
conduct after night and a number of highway robberies ; stores 
were also broken into and robbed. There were disorder and con- 
fusion in the preparations of the inhabitants for flight ; it was a 
frantic attempt to get themselves and their portable belongings away 
before the enemy should enter the city. " A party of Wheeler's 
Cavalry," wrote this correspondent of the Richmond Whig, " accom- 
panied by their officers dashed into town [February 16], tied their 
horses, and as systematically as if the)' had been bred to the busi- 



IV/w Burned Columbia ? ■ 49 1 

ness, proceeded to break into the stores along Main Street and rob 
them of their contents." Earlyin the morning of the 17th, the South 
Carolina railroad depot took fire through the reckless operations of 
a band of greedy plunderers, who while engaged in robbing "the 
stores of merchants and planters, trunks of treasure, wares and goods 
of fugitives," sent there awaiting shipment, fired, by the careless use 
of their lights, a train leading to a number of kegs of powder; the 
explosion which followed killed many of the thieves and set fire to 
the building. Major Chambliss, who was endeavoring to secure the 
means of transportation for the Confederate ordnance and ordnance 
stores, wrote : " The straggling cavalry and rabble were stripping 
the warehouses and railroad depots. The city was in the wildest 
terror. ' ' 

When the Union soldiers of Colonel Stone's brigade entered the 
city, they were at once supplied by citizens and negroes with large 
quantities of intoxicating liquor, brought to them in cups, bottles, 
demijohns, and buckets. Many had been without supper, and all 
of them without sleep, the night before, and none had eaten break- 
fast that morning. They were soon drunk, excited, and unmanage- 
able. The stragglers and " bummers," who had increased during the 
march through South Carolina, were now attracted by the oppor- 
tunity for plunder and swelled the crowd. Union prisoners of war 
had escaped from their places of confinement in the city and suburbs, 
and joining their comrades were eager to avenge their real or fancied 
injuries. Convicts in the jail had in some manner been released. 
The pillage of shops and houses and the robbing of men in the 
streets began soon after the entrance of the army. The officers 
tried to preserve discipline. Colonel Stone ordered all the liquor 
to be destroyed, and furnished guards for the private property of 
citizens and for the public buildings ; but the extent of the disorder 
and plundering during the day was probably not appreciated by 
Sherman and those high in command. Stone was hampered in his 
efforts to preserve order by the smallness of his force for patrol duty 
and by the drunkenness of his men. In fact, the condition of his 
men was such that at eight o'clock in the evening they were relieved 
from provost duty, and a brigade of the same division, who had 
been encamped outside of the city during the day, took their place. 
But the mob of convicts, escaped Union prisoners, stragglers and 
"bummers," drunken soldiers and negroes. Union soldiers who 
were ardent in their desire to take vengeance on South Carolina, 
could not be controlled. The sack of the city went on, and when 
darkness came the torch was applied to many houses ; the high 
wind carried the flames from building to building, until the best 



492 . J- F. Rhodes 

part of Columbia- — a city of eight thousand inhabitants — was 
destroyed. 

Colonel Stone wrote, two days afterwards : "About 8 o'clock 
the city was fired in a number of places by some of our escaped 
prisoners and citizens." " I am satisfied," said General W. B. 
Woods, commander of the brigade that relieved Stone, in his report 
of March 26, "by statements made to me by respectable citizens of 
the town, that the fire was first set by the negro inhabitants." Gen- 
eral C. R. Woods, commander of the first division, fifteenth corps, 
wrote, February 21 : "The town was fired in several different 
places by the villains that had that day been improperly freed from 
their confinement in the town prison. The town itself was full of 
drunken negroes and the vilest vagabond soldiers, the veriest 
scum of the entire army being collected in the streets." The very 
night of the conflagration he spoke of the efforts " to arrest the 
countless villains of every command that were roaming over the 
streets." 

General Logan, commander of the fifteenth corps, said, in his 
report of March 31 : "The citizens had so crazed our men with 
liquor that it was almost impossible to control them. The scenes 
in Columbia that night were terrible. Some fiend first applied the 
torch, and the wild flames leaped from house to house and street to 
street, until the lower and business part of the city was wrapped in 
flames. Frightened citizens rushed in every direction, and the reel- 
ing incendiaries dashed, torch in hand, from street to street, spread- 
ing dismay wherever they went." 

" Some escaped prisoners," wrote General Howard, commander 
of the right wing, April i, "convicts from the penitentiary just 
broken open, army followers, and drunken soldiers ran through 
house after house, and were doubtless guilty of all manner of 
villanies, and it is these men that I presume set new fires farther and 
farther to the windward in the northern part of the city. Old men, 
women, and children, with everything they could get, were herded 
together in the streets. At some places we found officers and 
kind-hearted soldiers protecting families from the insults and rough- 
ness of the careless. Meanwhile the flames made fearful ravages, 
and magnificent residences and churches were consumed in a very 
few minutes." All these quotations are from Federal officers who 
were witnesses of the scene and who wrote their accounts shortly 
after the event, without collusion or dictation. They wrote too 
before they knew that the question. Who burned Columbia ? would 
be an irritating one in the after years. These accounts are there- 
fore the best of evidence. It is not necessary to exclude one by an- 



Who Burned Columbia f 493 

other. All may be believed, leading us to the result that all the 
classes named had a hand in the sack and destruction of Columbia. 

When the fire was well under way, Sherman appeared on the 
scene, but gave no orders. Nor was it necessary, for Generals 
Howard, Logan, Woods, and others were laboring earnestly to pre- 
vent the spread of the conflagration. By their efforts and by the 
change and subsidence of wind, the fire in the early morning of 
February 18 was stayed. Columbia, wrote General Howard, was 
little " except a blackened surface peopled with numerous chimneys 
and an occasional house that had been spared as if by a miracle." 
Science, history, and art might mourn at the loss they sustained in 
the destruction of the house of Dr. Gibbes, an antiquarian and nat- 
uralist, a scientific acquaintance, if not a friend, of Agassiz. His 
large library, portfolios of fine engravings, two hundred paintings, 
a remarkable cabinet of southern fossils, a collection of sharks' 
teeth, "pronounced by Agassiz to be the finest in the world," relics 
of our aborigines and others from Mexico, "his collection of his- 
torical documents, original correspondence of the Revolution, es- 
pecially that of South Carolina," were all burned. 

The story of quelling the disorder is told by General Oliver : 
" February 18, at 4 A. m., the Third Brigade was called out to sup- 
press riot; did so, killing 2 men, wounding 30 and arresting 370." 
It is worthy of note that, despite the reign of lawlessness during the 
night, very few, if any, outrages were committed on women. 

James Ford Rhodes. 



CIBRHRY 0F~C0NGRE5S^ 



iiiiiiiniiii iiiiiini 

013 701 870 6 



> 



LIBRARY OF CONGl 



illlillliilli illlllihl 111 llilMilliilit 
013 701 870 



pH8J 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




iiiiiiiiiiniiiipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 
013 701 870 6 # 



penmalipe* 
pH8^ 



